Stats..... Good Or Bad?

[I_M_Weasel0r]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

When I created this thread I expected there to be a general muttering against stats, but in actual fact its the opposite. I've seen a lot of complaints against them and that there not "like the old days" of BF1942.
It must just be that the pro stats lobby arn't shouting as loud as the anti-stats.

For myself I dont care about my Global score, rank or ratios but I do like to get the medals, badges and ribbons. I think they show how rounded a player is better than the global score, which just says you've played a lot. I'm more impressed by someone who has veteran everything than some one with an 100,000 global score.

[EvilP]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

It's a nice feature, but it really detracts a bit for mod makers because it makes people stay on vanilla ranked BF2 instead of switching to a mod that could do for BF2 what desert combat did for BF1942.

[MIKEHUNT-UK]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

I’m all for stats!

It gives you goals to play for, (as long as you do it the right way) something I haven’t seen in a game before.

[imported_Phenomenomenon]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

Like most things in this world if people only did it my way it would be better. As it is, it is not.

I used to play bf42 and have to go looking for my stats. I enjoyed looking for them as they were a true reflection of my game play. My very nature as a BF player.

In the latest release of BF2 you have all these people going around exhibiting anti team rediculous behaviour in order to get some cyber medal. It's shameful. Your stats should only be there to improve your natural play. They in themselves are not the goal. Your skills as a teamplayer is.

For example I'm not far away from master or first seargeant. Well I can tell you right now that I"m going to be a proud master seargent. In order to have first I would have to run around using my pistol or knife or worst of all be a sniper. I'm not going to pull out a pistol and start popping away when my g36c is ready to do the job. Basically let your stats be a reflection of your gameplay. Don't alter your gameplay for cyber medals. It's just sad. And not what BF has ever been about.

You stat hounds are sad sad warriors.

[Auto-ER-]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

Even people lonewolfing, whoring up medic and support are helping the team win.

I don't play for stats persay, but when I am close to something, it gives me something more to do. It's always nice hearing the drumroll.

[Fielden]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

Regarding stat padders, we know who is the better player, and we know if we bump into him ingame and he only appears good from stat padding then we are going to :ar15: :hi:

[_X_]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

ahem .... you are playing because of stats? new unlocks?

you dont play so your team can win? you dont play to have fun?

:wall:

[RingPirate]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

I regulary look at my stats. Most players do. They are great cause they make your style of playing obvious. You can compare your success between different classes. The small arms k/d ratio is the most important to me cause i play mostly infantry. For example: you can be a dedicated squad player how almost sits on the squad leader making u an attractive target and probably hurting your stats. Overall I think stats show your effectivness (blending out players who only exploit).

You get people with "a better gun" as opposed to another poor shmoe who has a less-powerful gun. That's not making a level playing field.

The new guns aren't better they're different.

Assault unlock: is missing the nader making it harder to easily score u have to show some skill.

Medic's unlock: is the most inaccurate assault weapon, completley useless, i'd prefer the normal weapons over the einfield any day. Only single shot performance is ok

support: well the pkm is better than the pla and us guns same with the anti tank upgrade but this one also changes your style of play with that weapon.

sniper: very different opinions on those. the m95 is not bad. but the m24 is more accurate and the dragnov also has it's advantages

spec ops: yeah well i prefer the g36c but some people like the laser pointer very much for long range. the m4 is a very good weapon

same thing with the sf unlocks, the f2000 is also not overpowered at least not sf

In order to have first I would have to run around using my pistol or knife or worst of all be a sniper

I'll let u in on a little secret. The pistol is extremley accurate is a very useful weapon. Play the sniper kit. Bf2 plays totally different then and also u will find the pistol even more useull cause you can hit'em with the m24 /m95 and finish'em off with the pistol.
I think it's a good thing u can only get higher ranks having played all kits which in the process will much improve your skills figthing other players using those kits. Believe me.

[Eddy01741]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

I regulary look at my stats. Most players do. They are great cause they make your style of playing obvious. You can compare your success between different classes. The small arms k/d ratio is the most important to me cause i play mostly infantry. For example: you can be a dedicated squad player how almost sits on the squad leader making u an attractive target and probably hurting your stats. Overall I think stats show your effectivness (blending out players who only exploit).


The new guns aren't better they're different.

Assault unlock: is missing the nader making it harder to easily score u have to show some skill.

Medic's unlock: is the most inaccurate assault weapon, completley useless, i'd prefer the normal weapons over the einfield any day. Only single shot performance is ok

support: well the pkm is better than the pla and us guns same with the anti tank upgrade but this one also changes your style of play with that weapon.

sniper: very different opinions on those. the m95 is not bad. but the m24 is more accurate and the dragnov also has it's advantages

spec ops: yeah well i prefer the g36c but some people like the laser pointer very much for long range. the m4 is a very good weapon

same thing with the sf unlocks, the f2000 is also not overpowered at least not sf


I'll let u in on a little secret. The pistol is extremley accurate is a very useful weapon. Play the sniper kit. Bf2 plays totally different then and also u will find the pistol even more useull cause you can hit'em with the m24 /m95 and finish'em off with the pistol.
I think it's a good thing u can only get higher ranks having played all kits which in the process will much improve your skills figthing other players using those kits. Believe me.

Yeah, i agree, the unlocks are not better, just different. I got really annoyed when SF came out when people were saying "OMG THE F2000 ROXORZ" and stuff like that, i don't get what the hype really was. I got the F2000, tried it, and i still didn't like the scope or the accuracy of the weapon. I still prefer teh M16/AK101 better. Also, yeah, the pistol is EXTREMELY underestimated, it's very accurate. And yeah, that's how u get a pistol badge easy, just hit em with a sniper rifle, then pistol them to death. Anyways, i agree on ur opinion of the L85 too, it's so inaccurate, i don't get whey people like it at all. It's horrible on auto when farther then point blank, and single shot ain't too accurate either. The new G36E is way better, it's basically the M16A2 on steroids.

[Pirelli]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

Stats can bring out the worst in people, and it can effectively kill the mod community.

[shafik]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

Hmmm....
mmm...
No, sir, i don't like it.

[imported_bigpappa]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

BF42 had it right. Websites just recorded and ranked your progress. No 'sergent-major' or 'private' crap, just a position based on the rest in your hemisphere. It had NO impact on the game, whatsoever.

exactly what i was thinking too, it was just stats on a website....so yeah ranks and bad when someone can have a better gun just because they paid $30 for it..

[RingPirate]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

The new G36E is way better, it's basically the M16A2 on steroids.

agreed.
what do u think about the MG36? i like it but haven't really played it much. less damage more accuracy and not as loud as the pkm (although i love the sounds of the ak101/47 pkm & m95)

just to stay on topic, stats are good. they are 1 reason why people keep playing the game.

[Eddy01741]

Re: Stats..... Good Or Bad?

agreed.
what do u think about the MG36? i like it but haven't really played it much. less damage more accuracy and not as loud as the pkm (although i love the sounds of the ak101/47 pkm & m95)

just to stay on topic, stats are good. they are 1 reason why people keep playing the game.

I love the MG36, i don't know why i like it. It just bonds with me. although the actual files don't suggest much difference in accuracy, i feel it is much more accurate for some reason. I don't use the PKM and other LMGs unless for comparison to the MG36. Also, teh MG36 doesn't overheat until like a continuous 70 bullets, that's a good thing.